Bad.  Bitcoin doesn’t need this soft fork. It’s being pushed by a small group with big financial incentives, not by any real demand from the community.

This isn’t like the block size debate last time. What’s being proposed here would lead to an exponential increase in memory requirements, and they’ve failed to show why Bitcoin should bear that cost. If there were genuine demand, we’d see it thriving on platforms like Signet or Liquid—but no one’s using it there. That says a lot.

The reality is, Bitcoin already has so many underused features that can do the same things without risking its integrity. Bitcoin’s strength lies in its simplicity and its role as a store of value for 200 million people. That’s the social contract, and it’s what makes Bitcoin valuable.

Let’s be honest: this proposal isn’t about making Bitcoin better. It’s about agitating for a change to suit a few interests. We’ve seen these governance attacks before, and we’ll see them again. But every time, Bitcoin’s community has stood strong and rejected unnecessary risks. This should be no different 

 I concur, keep it simple.